The concept of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) was introduced sixty years ago to curb the overuse of agricultural pesticides, whereby its simplest version (IPM 1.0) was aiming at reducing the frequency of applications. Gradually, agro-ecological principles, such as biological control and habitat management, were included in IPM 2.0. However, throughout this time, smallholder farmers did not improve their decision-making skills and continue to use hazardous pesticides as their first control option. We are therefore proposing a new paradigm — IPM 3.0 — anchored on 3 pillars: 1) real-time farmer access to decision-making, 2) pest-management options relying on science-driven and nature-based approaches, and 3) the integration of genomic approaches, biopesticides, and habitat-management practices. We are convinced that this new paradigm based on technological advances, involvement of youth, gender-responsiveness, and climate resilience will be a game changer. However, this can only become effective through redeployment of public funding and stronger policy support.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2022.100961

Multi standard citation

APAHarvardMLAVancouverChicagoIEEE

Manuele Tamòhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-5863-7421

Ghislain Tepa-Yottohttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9650-8313

https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2022.100961

Plant Production and Health

Agronomy; Food Security; Pests of Plants; Plant Breeding; Plant Health; Smallholder Farmers

Integrated Pest Management; Biological Control; Climate Change; Smallholders; Pesticides

Africa; West Africa

Benin (Dahomey); Burkina Faso (Upper Volta); Ghana; Niger; Nigeria

Headquarters and Western Africa Hub

Current Opinion in Insect Science